ArticleAnnals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc2025
Comparative Analysis of Padua and Caprini Scores in Predicting Venous Thromboembolism Risk Among Nonagenarians: A Cross-Sectional Study From Rugao.
Article in Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Caprini score for venous thromboembolism risk assessment: A scoping review of applications, validation, and future directions.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Padua and Caprini Scores in Predicting Venous Thromboembolism Risk Among Nonagenarians: A Cross-Sectional Study From Rugao.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate and compare the predictive performance of Padua and Caprini scores for venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment in individuals aged ≥ 90 years.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among 511 nonagenarians in Rugao, China. Participants underwent comprehensive clinical assessments including both Padua and Caprini risk scoring. VTE events were monitored through the follow-up period. The predictive efficacy of both scoring systems was analyzed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and risk factors were evaluated through multivariate logistic regression.
resultsDuring follow-up, 31 participants (6.07%) developed VTE. The VTE group demonstrated significantly higher mean Padua scores (4.97 ± 2.21 vs. 4.11 ± 2.45, p = 0.0463), Caprini scores (6.39 ± 2.42 vs. 5.02 ± 2.39, p = 0.0044), and D-dimer levels (median 2.79 vs. 1.31 mg/L, p = 0.0133) compared to the non-VTE group. Both scoring systems showed moderate predictive capability, with the Padua score achieving an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.625 (95% CI: 0.533-0.717) and the Caprini score showing an AUC of 0.679 (95% CI: 0.590-0.768). Optimal cutoff values were 3.5 points for the Padua score (sensitivity 80.65%, specificity 50.42%) and 4.5 points for the Caprini score (sensitivity 77.42%, specificity 51.46%). Multivariate analysis identified atrial fibrillation (OR 4.130, 95% CI: 1.667-9.673, p = 0.001) and elevated Caprini score (OR 1.310, 95% CI: 1.073-1.582, p = 0.006) as significant independent risk factors for VTE. Interestingly, hypertension showed an unexpected protective association with VTE risk (OR 0.400, 95% CI: 0.162-0.907, p = 0.035).
conclusionsWhile both Padua and Caprini scores demonstrate moderate predictive value for VTE risk in nonagenarians, their accuracy suggests the need for age-specific refinement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.